FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEORGEL LAURENTIU DOBRICA, No. 10-70487
Petitioner, Agency No. A089-554-427
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Georgel Laurentiu Dobrica, a native and citizen of Romania, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,
withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence
the agency’s factual findings, applying the new standards governing adverse
credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590
F.3d 1034, 1039 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination
based on the omission from Dobrica’s asylum application and original declaration
that he was physically assaulted three times because of his Roma ethnicity. See
Zamanov v. Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011). Dobrica’s explanation
does not compel a contrary conclusion. See id. at 974. In the absence of credible
testimony, Dobrica’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v.
Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).
Because Dobrica’s CAT claim is based on the same testimony the agency
found not credible, and he points to no other evidence showing it is more likely
than not he will be tortured if returned to Romania, his CAT claim also fails. See
id. at 1156-57; Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.
2 10-70487
Contrary to Dobrica’s contentions, the BIA sufficiently addressed his
withholding of removal and CAT claims. See Farah, 348 F.3d at 1156; Lopez v.
Ashcroft, 366 F.3d 799, 807 n.6 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[t]he [BIA] does not have to
write an exegesis on every contention.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
3 10-70487